Coulter vs Darwin

Godless | 06/06 | Ann Coulter

[Almagest]

<< Sure when I get a reply to post 317. >>


So we have to bargain for integrity? I would be happy to address that post. I am about to hand over the computer to my wife for a little while -- but I will come back to it later tonight.

In the meantime, it seems rather strange to be offering up some sort of bargain like this. Does this mean you will condone tomzz's behavior if we do not answer that post -- and that you will try to prevail on his Christian conscience to do the right thing ONLY if we reply to that post?

I ask again -- is that the path of real integrity?

Regardless of what you choose to do -- I promise I will address that post later on tonight. I am not sure exactly what the poster meant when he wrote the quote you are responding to in that post -- but I will try to answer it from the perspective of a former YEC, as I have spoken to that question before in here.

[tomzz]

I'll say it again for anybody who might have missed it. The pictures in question are totally unambiguous:

That's meat, plain and simple. No amount of sophistry can make bone or petrified material out of that, and bone and/or petrified material is all you'd have after tens of millions of years.

The story which was carried by Reuters and MSNBC is also totally unambiguous:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

Moreover the story also notes that similar material has since been found in other dinosaur remains:

"The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said. Since the discovery, she has found similar samples of soft tissue in two other Tyrannosaur fossils and a hadrosaur..."

The totality of the evidence here indicates that the story is basically simple, and that hardcore evolutionists are in some sort of a state of denial.

[1000 silverlings]

No it's very simple:

you wrote We evil evos are constantly being accused of dishonesty and deliberate distortions

Rightwingnilla made a statement, quite outrageous in my point of view, and all I asked of him was an explanation, which so far, has not appeared. When that is answered I can perhaps deal with your issue which you did ask others here to look at. that is all.

[andysandmikesmom]

I do think that Almagest will give you a fine response...Almagest comes to these threads, with a perspective that is very unique, on these threads...I look forward to his/her response as well...(almagest, are you male or female, I am guessing female, if your first name is alma, but I have been wrong before, so need to ask before assuming)

[1000 silverlings]

Why can't rightwingnilla respond, he made the remark.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's meat, plain and simple."

Not even close, as the researcher's account substantiates. The picture you are posting is a greatly blown up. It's not muscle (meat). It's about 3mm in diameter. The only people calling it meat are you and other creationists.

"The story which was carried by Reuters and MSNBC is also totally unambiguous:"

And doesn't at all say that anything like meat was found.

Do you even read what you post?

[RightWingNilla]

In what way?

By cracking open the door to doubt...even just a tiny bit.

[andysandmikesmom]

I am sure he can respond...I just answered it, from my own perspective...sometimes when folks question something on an open thread, often others will answer...sorry, if I butted in, where not wanted...

[1000 silverlings]

Again, you make a statement and just let it go, thinking that that should be proof enough. What exactly causes this doubt that you mention? Please gives some facts.

[Almagest]

Post #227 shows the pictures as they appeared originally in the scientific paper -- and shows how tiny they were. They were structures INSIDE THE BONE. Not "meat."

In addition -- the article I linked to clearly explains the distortions by the creationists and by the popular articles.

And third -- you have got yourself caught by the short hairs, and it is the honorable thing to admit error. Plain and simple.

I have to do that all the time. It doesn't hurt as much as the contortions you are putting yourself through -- and it helps restore a smidgen of credibility, which are you working so hard at totally destroying with this tactic you are stubbornly choosing to employ.

[tomzz]

Not even close, as the researcher's account substantiates. The picture you are posting...

Let's try a little exercise here...

This is a dog, right? Why don't you explain to us how, despite the obvious appearance, the animal in the picture is a dog? If you can make stone and mineral deposits out of the picture I posted, making a dog out of this ought to be easy for you.

[stands2reason]

Is English not your first language?

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, I will apologize for restornu then. He's right when he says other Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christians. He's a tad sensitive as he gets that all the time.

[stands2reason]

You have stated as a fact, that I said you were Godless, because you were LDS...you have stated this as a fact...it is not...you are really bearing false witness against me, and I really dont like it...I would like you to explain why you are saying that I said something that I did not say...

Being a creationist means never having to say you are sorry.

You'll get an apology from a demon before you get one here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you can make stone and mineral deposits out of the picture I posted, making a dog out of this ought to be easy for you."

The pictures were not anything like meat, as the researchers verified. The sample is about 3mm in diameter. The articles also substantiated this. Only you and certain creationists are calling it meat, and you are making it up. You are the one calling the cat a dog. Your own evidence argues against you.

No blood cells were found. No DNA. Just remnants (perhaps) of blood chemicals. How that becomes *meat* is a mystery only you can answer, because it is meat only in your mind.

[andysandmikesmom]

Well, its up to you to apologize, tho I appreciate the sentiment...I just do not want ugly rumors about me, to go unchallenged...it may be that Restornu has suffered at the hands of others, and if so, then I can understand being a bit sensitive...but it is no reason to accuse me of doing what others may have done...anyone who has read my posts, knows that I do not do that sort of thing...I come here to learn and see what others have to offer...In the matter of religion, I have never said to anyone, regardless of what religion they may be, that they were Godless...thats not my place...

Again, I thank you for the kind thoughts...

[Right Wing Professor]

The question is not when was Jimmy Hoffa was deposited in the cement, but which is older. In this case, it would be Jimmy Hoffa.

That's right. By about 50 years.

So what's 68 million plus 50?

Your example lacks credibility inasmuch as (it is assumed) the depositions encasing fossils typically took place over long periods of time as opposed to a sudden application of Ready Mix.

Maybe you assume this, Don't know anyone else who does.

I understand the fossil record to be chiefly, but not completely, a record denoting a wordwide deluge: catastrophic with long lasting results.

I know someone who understands the government is beaming messages into his brain from his car radio via his tooth fillings. It's a shame; he's a smart guy.

[andysandmikesmom]

Oops...I mean to say its NOT up to you to apologize...sorry about that...

[restornu]

"some think that those who belong to CERTAIN Christian churches are Godless..."

No it was how you pharsed that and having knowledge that many here think the LDS are Godless, by posting it that way how else am I to feel knowing what it might imply about me to those who dislike the LDS known as the OTHER(Certain)!

Even if you personally say you don't believe it, still stir up ill feeling!

On this forum the LDS are refered to as-

Other Christian (as a courtesy from FR, some freepers view the LDS as a cult or worst)

other 7th Day Adventist, Churches of God, Messianic Christians, Unitarian, LDS, etc.

Being the fact I am other than!

Most likely the reason for this diologue started because some might have thought I had a problem with evolution and with those who venture into that area are Godless and I don't believe all are.

...Sme how this got added to the mix-

"some think that those who belong to CERTAIN Christian churches are Godless..."

My beef is with those who try to undermind the Judeo-Christian laws nothing more...

So Kudo's to Ann Coulter for fighting the battle!

[RightWingNilla]

What exactly causes this doubt that you mention?

Weak faith.

What happens if Genesis isnt meant to be taken literally true? Could that mean other parts of the Bible aren't either? Which parts? All parts? What to do?!

You realize this is what the YECers *themselves* have maintained time and time again in these threads. You act like it is some astounding revelation. Are you prentending to be naive?

Ask them yourself if you are so interested in this psychology.